Another Opinion on US “System”

It’s good to know that I am not the only one looking at this proposal and not knowing whether to laugh or cry. The post titled “A Mighty Wind” over at The Dealmaker’s blog is well worth a read. Just watch it though – the language is not entirely worksafe.

There are some great quotes in there:

Forget the no doubt significant fact that substantial
portions of the Administration’s regulatory proposals were authored by
products of a government-to-industry-to-government merry go round like
Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner. Forget the fact that the
Administration is said to have consulted heavily with industry
participants and lobbyists for input on proposed regulations. No, what
really matters at the end of the day is that the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission is overseen by the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees.
…
But investment bankers adapt. Change is the water we swim in, the air we
breathe. We will adapt to whatever stupid new regulations and
incompetent, undertrained, overmatched new regulators you throw at us.
And we will come out on top, as always.

It’s just too bad we’re gonna have to charge you extra for the added headache.

Classic. The important points though, are entirely valid – even that
last one that comes across as a smirk. Every regulation costs money to
comply with and that has to come from somewhere. I can guarantee you
that they are not going to be paying the people less as they need more
to comply with the regulations – and more smart people to work out the
best way to do so. The shareholders need to be compensated more for the
increased risk of investing. The buildings will not cost less.
The people who pay for all this are the depositors and borrowers – i.e. you. Oh – and the taxpayers. Oops – you again.

I will be adding this one to the blogroll.

[UPDATE]
If you want to have a look at a near final draft of the proposed changes, it is here. I understand this is the one most people are working off.
Another opinion is here. As this one is a Reuters blog, it is much cleaner. There are, for example, no uses of the